Support NeoGAF

[Matty77]

A (presumably) gay man violates another man's privacy and puts his nose where it doesn't belong.

A religious man decides that it is their prerogative to restrict the rights of others and invade their privacy.

It makes perfect sense.

Maybe I interpreted the comic wrong but I thought it was arguing that it is okay to be intolerant of gay marriage.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

'The church' doesn't sign it. A person who has legal authority by the state to observe that the marriage is legit (called an Officiant) signs it. This is usually someone from a church, but that is not always the case. Other people from the state such as judges have the same authority. There are other non-religious Officients too such as people who belong to humanist associations.

This all means that a church is not required to get married, and people have no right to demand they be wed at any particular church. It flies in the face of the first amendment because Churches have the right to exercise their religious beliefs.

If you believe in separation of church and state you have to believe in both sides of the arrangement.

Exactly. Hell, my mom worked in a university student legal center and she was a notary public. That authorized her to sign marriage licenses for students who came in wanting to get married.

 

[Calm Killer]

This is a thing? As an outsider the US is utterly baffling to me at times. It's 2015 ffs.

What does the current year have to do with what someone considers right or wrong? To most Christians its pretty black and white. Something is right or wrong. The current year has no relevance.

 

[Suikoguy]

Maybe I interpreted the comic wrong but I thought it was arguing that it is okay to be intolerant of gay marriage.

Yeah, it's not a very good comic if it's that damn confusing.

 

[subrock]

if you want to be exempt from something that was deemed unconstitutional, whatever your reason, fuck right off

 

[A Link to the Past]

Maybe I interpreted the comic wrong but I thought it was arguing that it is okay to be intolerant of gay marriage.

I can absolutely see why you would haha, I just think that the comic was meaning to say "if you're okay with violating my privacy, I'm okay with violating yours."

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

I can absolutely see why you would haha, I just think that the comic was meaning to say "if you're okay with violating my privacy, I'm okay with violating yours."

No, I think it's like the young guy is anti-gay marriage and the old guy is pro gay marriage because the old guy is like "you're trying to change the rules!" and the young guy is like "ha! I have you now, you gay lover!"

It's a horrendously done comic lol.

It's also 9 years old.

 

[A Link to the Past]

No, I think it's like the young guy is anti-gay marriage and the old guy is pro gay marriage because the old guy is like "you're trying to change the rules!" and the young guy is like "ha! I have you now, you gay lover!"

It's a horrendously done comic lol.

It's also 9 years old.

Oh shit my bad, I misread the last panel, I thought he was saying that the homeowner was intolerant lol.

Yeah, it's a pretty shit comic

 

[Matty77]

Oh shit my bad, I misread the last panel, I thought he was saying that the homeowner was intolerant lol.

Yeah, it's a pretty shit comic

the fact it could be misread just goes to show how shit. I don't think I am that dumb and I have never seen you post anything to make me think your unintelligent, so its got to be the writer/artist.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Oh shit my bad, I misread the last panel, I thought he was saying that the homeowner was intolerant lol.

Yeah, it's a pretty shit comic

Oh, yeah, no I get it. I saw it in the gay marriage salt thread last night and we were all like "what the fuck is this supposed to mean." We concluded the only real clue was the phrase "you're trying to change the rules" which is said in regards to a legal term - trespassing - which also applies to "marriage" and therefore the young guy was responding that the old guy was trying to change the rules of marriage.

Like, yeah, see? It's probably the worst comic ever written that was trying to express a point. I seriously mean that. It's awful.

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

More future failure for them:

http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/poli...gh-in-on-same-sex-marriage-decision/29334701/

I guess they can't get enough losing.

 

[ericexpo]

Its not hard.

You just have to give up your 14th amendment protections and then pay a lawyer so you can sue the business and hope another business will open so you can use a service.

Sounds super simple to me!
Can't wait 6-8 months for that pizza I wanted. After I meet with city government, went to court, settled. And then hopefully a gay friendly pizza place gets a loan to open in a neighborhood where the same business was just shut down.

Sorry free market dosnt really help that fast.

 

[Wolfe]

Everyone uses public resources. Not sure how much of a bearing that means.

That's the point, they're using the same public resources as everyone else yet they want to be able to pick and choose who they serve? We are living in a society(!)

I have access to LexisNexis et. all and reading laws is literally in my job description.

I probably would need to at least confer with a lawyer though. But depending on how serious I felt about the case, and whether I feel like doing it, I could probably represent myself. I would need some advice about the many technicalities of filing shit with the court though and all that.

This is just a pastime for me. You'd be surprised what I can do when I actually get bothered enough to research shit.

Try showing some humility dude, you come off sounding as though you think very highly of yourself and are somewhat of a know it all. Not trying to insult you just how your posts come off after having read through most of the thread.

Great artists steal, and in due time. I'm getting tired of the lack of open mindedness on this board though... might be time to move on.

Cmon son.gif

 

[SolarMystic]

Seperation of Church and State works both ways.

I agree. As a big supporter of marriage equality, we cannot force a religious group to partake in something that they clearly do not support. To do so would be very hypocritical.

 

[Link]

Seperation of Church and State works both ways.

Tell that to Republicans.

 

[foxuzamaki]

See. This is the problem I have. Why should businesses be any different? And before any body brings it up (again), I'm black, and would be willing to have the same standard applied to black people.

In my opinion, if you're not the only business offering a particular service in an area, you should be able to serve who you like. The idea you can't control who enters your business strikes me as very un-American.

lawd have mercy

 

[SolarMystic]

Tell that to Republicans.

Not a very good argument to make. That is like saying doing something objectively wrong (like drunk driving for example) is ok because other people do it.

 

[Link]

Not a very good argument to make. That is like saying doing something objectively wrong (like drunk driving for example) is ok because other people do it.

Don't misunderstand me, I don't think churches should have to perform same-sex weddings. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the people (knowingly) incorrectly screaming about how it's going to happen.

 

[SolarMystic]

Don't misunderstand me, I don't think churches should have to perform same-sex weddings. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the people (knowingly) incorrectly screaming about how it's going to happen.

Oh ok, I gotcha.

 

[phisheep]

In the UK don't the laws say Churches are banned (legally) from performing gay weddings for many years now?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ns-can-opt-in-for-gay-ceremonies-8405966.html

https://churchofengland.org/our-vie...he-church-of-england-an-explanatory-note.aspx

Anything that affected UK society that we can expect to play out in a similar fashion regarding that or are these countries too different to compare?

No, that's not what the laws say. As with everything else in the UK the law is way more complicated and ancient than that!

But very roughly, the same-sex marriage legislation in England and Wales gives the right (but not the duty) to marry same-sex couples to a few religions (Quakers and Jews I think) because these were specifically addressed in previous legislation. And that's not discriminatory, because they only have a right and not a duty to marry anyone at all.

The Church of England and the Church in Wales, as state-established churches, are in a strange legal position where normally they have a DUTY to marry those suitably qualified (for example, residing in the parish etc), and that duty has not been extended to the marriage of same-sex couples. The Church in Wales has been given the right to opt-in to same-sex marriage, but the Church of England hasn't been - but again that is because of historical legal stuff. In practice the Church of England can opt in if it so wishes - but that's subject to Canon Law of the Church (which because it is a State church also forms part of the law of England).

All other churches (including Catholic, Muslim, Sikh, Orthodox etc etc) are, for the purposes of the Marriage Acts, merely buildings licensed for the performance of marriages, and as such they may perform same sex marriages subject to whatever the rules are for registering marriages.

 

[Yagharek]

What does the current year have to do with what someone considers right or wrong? To most Christians its pretty black and white. Something is right or wrong. The current year has no relevance.

Actually it is relevant which year it is, as older laws within the bible are no longer adhered to.

 

[SolarMystic]

Actually it is relevant which year it is, as older laws within the bible are no longer adhered to.

Your right that the year is relevant, but the particular old law you are talking about is largely still adhered too in most christian faiths.

 

[CornBurrito]

recognizing that we are all sinners in need of God's grace, while challenging everyone to not continue in their life of sin, as Jesus challenged the woman caught in adultery, but to repent and seek the path of holiness that leads to communion with God and with each other.

Which sounds all nice and good, but to someone who doesn't believe in the Bible it really is no different than if a church claimed they were accepting of those with African heritage but encouraged those people to straighten their hair, bleach their skin, and drop any features of their speech that are seen as "African". Having African genes of course isn't the sin, but continuing to embody those characteristics when you have the power to change them is wrong.

It also very much sucks that homosexuality continue to be compared to things like adultery. You don't see same sex couples as actually being in love, but as some base animals caught in a lust frenzy. Barely human, and pulled in whatever direction by their base urges.

 

[AxelFoley]

See. This is the problem I have. Why should businesses be any different? And before any body brings it up (again), I'm black, and would be willing to have the same standard applied to black people.

In my opinion, if you're not the only business offering a particular service in an area, you should be able to serve who you like. The idea you can't control who enters your business strikes me as very un-American.

Makes what you said all the more stupid, bruh. You, a black man, are in favor of discrimination. Nah, dude.

And for the record, I'm black, too. Too many of our ancestors bled and died for our rights to be like dismissive of this.